A majority of Americans disapproves of Trump's Iran airstrikes, CNN poll finds
President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes against Iran is broadly unpopular with Americans, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS after the strikes.
Americans disapprove of the strikes, 56% to 44%, according to the survey, with strong disapproval outpacing the share who strongly approve. Most distrust Trump's decision-making on the use of force in Iran, with about 6 in 10 worried that the strikes will increase the Iranian threat to the US.
Sharp partisan divides cut through nearly every question asked in the survey: Democrats are broadly opposed to the strikes as most Republicans support them, though younger GOP supporters and Republican-leaning independents are more skeptical than others in their party.
Majorities of independents (60%) and Democrats (88%) disapprove of the decision to take military action in Iran. Republicans largely approve (82%). But just 44% of Republicans strongly approve of the airstrikes, far smaller than the group of Democrats who strongly disapprove (60%), perhaps reflecting that some in Trump's coalition are broadly distrustful of military action abroad.
A 58% majority overall say the strikes will make Iran more of a threat to the US, with just 27% believing it will lessen the threat and the rest expecting it to do neither. Even among those who support the strikes, just 55% expect them to lessen the threat level.
And few say the US made enough of an effort at diplomacy before using military force: 32% feel the US did enough, 39% that it did not and 29% are unsure.
The poll was conducted Sunday and Monday, with nearly all of the interviews completed before Iran launched retaliatory strikes Monday against US air bases and all interviews done before Trump's subsequent announcement of a ceasefire.
Just over half of Americans, 55%, expresses little or no trust in Trump to make the right decisions about the US use of force in Iran, with 45% saying they trust him moderately or a great deal. And most – 65% – say that he should be required to get congressional approval for any further military action, with 21% saying he should not.
Mistrust of Trump's judgment is especially high among Democrats (88% of whom express little or no trust) and independents (62%), who also broadly say the president should be required to get congressional approval for any further military action in Iran (88% of Democrats and 67% of independents feel that way).
Republicans express more trust in the president, although that trust is also somewhat tempered: 51% say they have a great deal of trust in him to make the right decisions on the use of force with Iran, 37% a moderate amount. And the GOP divides over whether Trump ought to be required to get congressional approval for further action, with 39% saying he should be required to do so, 38% that he should not and 23% are not sure.
Americans younger than 35 are more likely than any other age group to disapprove of the military action in Iran (68% disapprove). They also express the broadest skepticism about Trump: They are the most likely of any age group to say they have no trust at all in Trump's ability to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran (45% feel that way) and to say he ought to be required to get congressional approval before taking further military action (73%).
That skepticism is partly driven by younger Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Just 20% of Republican-aligned Americans younger than 45 say they strongly approve of the decision to carry out airstrikes, compared with 53% among older Republican-aligned Americans. Younger Republicans are about 20 points more likely than older adults aligned with the party to believe the strikes increase the threat to the US from Iran and are 26 points less likely to have a great deal of trust in Trump's decision-making on the use of force in Iran.
Overall, there's almost no public appetite for sending ground troops into Iran, with just 9% in favor, and 68% opposed, with the remaining 23% unsure. Even those who support the airstrikes against Iran oppose sending in ground troops by a more than 2-to-1 margin.
The share of Americans who offer no opinion when given the choice to do suggests that public opinion hasn't yet fully settled in the wake of a rapidly evolving situation. While the vast majority, 8 in 10, say they've been following news about America's strikes at least somewhat closely, only about one-third say they've followed the news very closely.
The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS on June 22 and 23. Interviews with 1,030 adults nationwide were conducted by text message. People interviewed for the poll are members of the nationally representative SSRS Text Message Panel. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
20 minutes ago
- CNBC
Many insurance underwriters won't offer coverage to U.S., Israel, U.K.-linked vessels at any price
The conflict in the Middle East has led many insurance underwriters in the maritime shipping market to avoid offering coverage to any U.S., Israel, or U.K.-linked vessels. "Many underwriters are not touching vessels with perceived U.S., U.K. or Israeli links at any price," said David Osler, insurance editor for Lloyd's List. According to insurance broker Marsh McLennan, rates among insurance companies that are offering coverage to vessels are now ranging between 0.25%-0.45% of ship value, up from 0.125% a few weeks ago. These rates were consistent over the previous week, but after the U.S. strikes over the weekend on Iran nuclear sites, Middle East marine war risk rates "hardened significantly," according to Osler. By the end of the day on Monday, pricing had risen to as high as 0.5%, and was even higher for U.S.-affiliated ships. Osler tells CNBC because of the fluidity, underwriters also cut the required notification period from 48 hours to 24 hours. "The certainty we can convey is that we can get insurance. The uncertainty is the pricing," said Marcus Baker, global head of marine, cargo, and logistics at Marsh McLennan. Baker told CNBC he cannot remember a time when the notification period was reduced from 48 hours to 24 hours. Middle East ocean freight rates have also experienced a surge. Among issues that are influencing the insurance market are concerns about Iran blocking and trapping ships, and the level of appetite from China, a big customer of Iranian oil. President Trump said in a social media post on Tuesday that China can keep buying Iranian oil, a signal the U.S. was not intent on maximizing pressure on Iran's economy. "If there was a pullback from China, there would be less call for war risk, so the simple laws of supply and demand suggest it should calm rates," said Osler. Osler said rates should ease off if the current tentative ceasefire holds, based on information he has received from insurance market sources, but the headlines Tuesday indicating Iran and Israel were possibly not as close to de-escalation as the U.S. had hoped are now weighing on the outlook. "This just gets to the heart of the nervousness that we're seeing in the marketplace, because they just, don't know, and things are happening so fast. I mean, in Trump's interview this morning, I don't know what that's going to do, but he's obviously angry," Osler said of President Trump's comments to the press before he left for a NATO summit when he said he was "not happy" with Israel and Iran, after having announced the ceasefire on Monday night. "The developments effectively put the market in wait-and-see mode, with conditions volatile as underwriters come to terms with political developments as they unfold," Osler said. "Inquiries are said to be well down, which indicates that some owners are not prepared to take bookings to the region, given the military situation." Baker said a decision by Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz has political and economic aspects, and practical issues for China and India, the largest destinations of Iranian crude, not to mention the reaction from other Middle Eastern nations to consider, incuding Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. Last Wednesday, the Joint War Committee of Lloyd's of London's war risk underwriters met, where they released a list of designated areas underwriters have the discretion, but not the obligation, to levy additional premiums or APs. This list remains unchanged. In an updated threat circular from British maritime security firm Ambrey released on Tuesday, it wrote, "There is a realistic possibility that the conflict between Israel and Iran will continue/restart, and there may be subsequent U.S. involvement, but the risk of U.S. involvement is assessed to have lowered. However, the Gulf is generally taken to be part of the wider Indian Ocean listed area and links to the listed Red Sea. This means that in practice, shipowners must provide insurers with notification of transits." Baker said it is important to put the rise in rates in context of recent conflict zones and shipping. "Ukraine rates went up to 5% and we're only, we're not even a tenth of those rates yet," he said. "Five percent of around a million dollars, or a million and a half dollars, depending on the size of the ship. It was a very significant increase in the value of grain, which was way less than the value of a cargo of oil and a VLCC [very large crude carrier]. It's just a question of different underlies, different appetites, different risk perceptions, and that will influence where things go," Baker added.
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Justice Department official suggested ignoring court orders on deportations, whistleblower claims
WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members, a fired department lawyer alleged in a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday. The filing seeking an investigation into the claims about Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove , who is set to face lawmakers Wednesday for his confirmation hearing to become a federal appeals court judge. The former DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, was fired after he conceded in a court hearing that Kilmar Abrego Garcia should not have been deported to El Salvador, and expressed frustration over a lack of information about the administration's actions. The whistleblower filing from Reuveni's lawyers describes a Justice Department meeting in March after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act over what he claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua . The filing alleges that Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could be carried out. Reuveni claims Bove used a profanity, saying the department would need to consider telling the courts 'f— you,' and 'ignore any such order,' according to the filing. 'Mr. Reuveni was stunned by Bove's statement because, to Mr. Reuveni's knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership - in any Administration – had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with' an expletive, the filing says. Reuveni's claims were first reported Tuesday by The New York Times. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche denied the allegations in a post on X Tuesday morning. Blanche said Reuveni's claims are 'utterly false,' adding that he was at the meeting and 'at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.' 'Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,' Blanche wrote. Reuveni was fired shortly after he had been promoted to serve as acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation. He had worked for the Justice Department for nearly 15 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Business Insider
24 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump is on edge about the Israel-Iran cease-fire, but markets are celebrating
Markets are cheering the cease-fire between Israel and Iran, even as Trump voices concern. The news is good enough for investors, who have spent the last week fretting over the conflict. But markets are on watch for signs that tensions could re-escalate, analysts say. President Donald Trump appears to still be on edge from the conflict that unfolded between Israel and Iran over the last several weeks, but the market appears eager to resume its rally toward record highs. Trump said Israel and Iran had agreed to a cease-fire on his Truth Social account Monday evening — news that was welcomed by investors, even as the president fired off a series of posts on Tuesday urging Israel to stick to the agreement he brokered. Still, after confronting the prospect of a much wider regional conflict, investors seemed ready to celebrate a win for the market. Here's where major indexes stood at 11:45 a.m. ET on Tuesday: S&P 500: 6,084.14, up 0.98% Dow Jones Industrial Average: 43,008.17, up 1% (+426.39 points) Nasdaq 100: 19,905.52, up 1.4% Investors have been fretting for more than a week over the economic implications if tensions in the Middle East were to escalate. But for now, the cease-fire appears to have lifted their spirits, according to David Morrison, a senior market analyst at Trade Nation. "So, with the immediate geopolitical tensions dialled down, investors are free to focus on President Trump's trade war and the first tariff deadline coming up in a couple of weeks," Morrison wrote in a note on Tuesday, adding that he believed stocks were still in a bull market. "This de-escalation is leading investors to be more comfortable engaging in risk-on trades in the equity market. Even if there is further escalation, it appears that Iran has limited abilities to retaliate, which is strengthening expectations that this conflict will calm down" Chirs Brigati, the chief investment officer at SWBC, said in a statement. "As far as investors are concerned, they've just stared down the prospect of World War Three, so they're not going to be fussed by a few percentage points on US imports," he added of tariff risks. Oil prices, which spiked as tensions in the Middle East escalated, dropped sharply from their recent highs. Brent crude, which spiked as much as 14% amid the 12-day conflict, traded 4% lower on Tuesday at around $65 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate crude, which spiked as much as 10% over the same period, also fell 4% to trade around $65 a barrel, below levels on the day the conflict started. The declines are signs that oil markets are no longer fretting over possible supply disruptions in the Middle East, according to Alex Kuptsikevich, the chief market analyst at FXPro. "Retreating to levels seen before the latest conflict, the price recouped the 'war premium,'" Kuptsikevich wrote in a note on Tuesday. Here are other important moves in the market: The US Dollar Index: 97.90 (-0.53%) Bitcoin: 105,662.80 (+0.21%) Gold: 3,319.60 (-2.22%) Investors, though, are still on watch for signs that conflict could re-escalate in the coming days. "Markets breathed a sigh of relief following Trump's ceasefire declaration, but the celebration could be short-lived. If tensions flare again or the ceasefire is violated, we could see a swift return to risk aversion — boosting safe havens like gold and pressuring global equities," Lukman Otunuga, a senior market analyst at FXTM, wrote in a note. "In our downside scenario, we assume ceasefire negotiations break down and Iran attempts to disrupt trade with mines and attacks on shipping," researchers at Oxford Economics wrote in a note.
